Chairman Kehoe stated that, as has happened several times in the past, the public hearing on this application for a preliminary subdivision approval is being adjourned. This item will be back on the agenda for the next Planning Board meeting to be held on Tuesday, October 26th.

Chairman Kehoe noted that the Planning Board received in their packets a letter to the Village Engineer from the Village’s consulting engineers Dvirka and Bartilucci dated October 8, 2010 in which Dvirka and Bartilucci provide their comments on this Applicant’s storm water management plan. This memorandum has been forwarded on to the Applicant’s engineering firm Cronin Engineering. Chairman Kehoe said that he would expect that the Applicant will be back on the agenda within the next month or so to address Dvirka and Bartilucci’s comments.

Mr. Gemmola said that he has provided to the Planning Board for this meeting a revised set of plans. The lighting consultant for the Applicant is also present tonight to address any questions about the lighting on the diner property. Mr. Gemmola noted that besides the application materials that the Planning Board received in their packets, he has some additional materials (handouts) to distribute to the board tonight.

Mr. Gemmola distributed to the board members two photometric plans showing the location of the light poles and the light intensities/values at various points on the diner property. Chairman Kehoe asked if the Applicant’s lighting consultant prepared these plans, to which Mr. Gross replied that he did. Mr. Gross said that the plans submitted tonight are different from the photometric plans that were previously submitted. They are more like “contour maps” for the lighting that show the values as they hit the ground. Chairman Kehoe stated that the Planning Board members had questions about what the previously submitted photometric plans mean. Mr. Gross explained to the board that, with respect to the lighting at the diner property, what Mr. Gemmola is proposing is much less obtrusive. The parking lot will have
slightly less light, but the lot will be more evenly lit. Mr. Gross said that, all in all, the lighting will be better than it is now.

Mr. Kauderer said that he noticed that there are differences in the two plans that were handed out tonight. He pointed out the differences. Mr. Gross said that the two plans are relatively the same. It does not matter to him which one of these plans the board looks at. Mr. Gross noted that the lighting being proposed, although less than what it was before, is more efficient and will provide sufficient light for people walking in the parking lot at night. Mr. Gross referred to the number values on the plans that were handed out to the board and explained what they meant.

Mr. Luntz asked what is considered a good value to have in a parking lot, to which Mr. Gross said, “0.2 minimum candles and 5 maximum candles.”

Chairman Kehoe asked what the lighting is going to be like in the area near the house on Hudson Street. Mr. Gross said that there is a retaining wall between the diner property and this adjacent property, and the height of the wall is ten feet. He can safely say that the lighting from the diner property onto this adjacent property with the house on it would be “0.” Mr. Luntz said that it is his understanding that, “You want to get as close to “0” at the perimeter of the property as you can,” to which Mr. Gross said that this is correct. Mr. Luntz said that it would seem from the plans that the lighting around the existing house on Hudson Street is, indeed, practically at “0.”

Mr. Gross noted to the board that the light fixtures on the building are “full cut off with a wide throw” to provide light on the sidewalk on the Hudson Street side.

Chairman Kehoe referred to the numbers being shown on the plan at the Bungalow Road entrance and questioned how the number value in the center circle could be “5” when the light fixture is pointed in a different direction, to which Mr. Gross said that, “He cannot control where the points fall out.” It just depends on where the light hits. Mr. Gross went on to explain that these number values are generated by a computer, so, he has no control over it.

Mr. Aarons asked how much light there would be around the trash container, to which Mr. Gross said, “a foot candle and a half.” Mr. Aarons said that for safety purposes he would like to see the light at least a foot higher than the trash enclosure which is going to be 6 feet high, to which Mr. Gross said that the lights are at least 11 or 12 feet high.

Mr. Gemmola said that, since the last meeting, he has received information from the Village’s Fire Inspector Peter Anfiteatro on the regulations in the Fire Code pertaining to the proximity of dumpsters/trash containers to combustible walls. Mr. Gemmola said that they (the Applicant) are in conformance with the Fire Code. The trash enclosure will be situated 6.2 feet from the wall; the minimum allowable distance is 5 feet. Also, the materials being used for the enclosure are non-combustible.

Mr. Gemmola distributed to the board a drawing showing a sidewalk proposal for the Hudson Street side of the diner. Mr. Gemmola said that the sidewalk would be 4 feet wide and made of concrete. Installing a sidewalk in that location would mean taking down the stone wall and fencing. Mr. Gemmola gave a detailed description of where the sidewalk would have to be installed along Hudson Street and said that he, personally, would think that a sidewalk in that location would constitute a “bad design” for a sidewalk. Mr. Gemmola showed the board photographs of the walkway on the opposite side of the street that school children currently use to catch the bus and shoppers use to access the stores. Mr. Gemmola said that this walkway is lit at night. In the morning, children stay on that side of the street where the
bus comes to pick them up. Mr. Gemmola said that, as requested, he prepared this sketch of a proposed sidewalk, but he believes that “what they are doing now is a safe way.” Ms. Allen noted that the sidewalk across the street is owned by someone else, to which Mr. Gemmola said that this is true, but the walkway is currently being used for access to the school bus, stores, etc. Chairman Kehoe asked if people have to walk behind the cars on that side of the street, to which Mr. Gemmola said, “No.” Mr. Luntz said that he, personally, thinks that the sidewalk on the diner side is not such a good idea. Mr. Kauderer agreed and added that he does not see how it would be all that helpful.

Mr. Gemmola distributed to the board a color rendering of the south elevation of the new handicap ramp.

Mr. Gemmola showed the board a revised landscaping plan and noted that this plan is based on the VEB’s (Advisory Board on the Visual Environment’s) comments about the landscaping; it represents what the Applicant’s landscape designer spoke about the last time. The species and quantities as well as the landscaping schedule have been changed accordingly. Chairman Kehoe asked if the landscape designer did 100% of what the VEB asked for, to which Mr. Gemmola replied that the landscape designer’s intent for the diner property was to incorporate a variety of flowering plants into the landscaping that would be in bloom at different times during the growing season. He did not follow the VEB’s suggestions “percentage-wise” but, if the board so chooses, they could show the VEB the revised plan and work it out with the VEB. Mr.
Gemmola said that the stone wall, fencing and landscaping being proposed would help to give the diner property a “residential look” and, all in all, is a lot more pleasing than what is there now. Mr. Gemmola noted that the trees/plantings on the Hudson Street side would help to buffer the residences along Hudson Street. Chairman Kehoe noted that some asphalt would have to be removed to create a planting area behind the stone wall and fencing on the Hudson Street side.

Mr. Luntz noted that an issue that has been raised has to do with a lack of confidence that what is being presented will actually occur. Mr. Luntz said that there has been an ongoing history with this Applicant of “getting us to agree with something and then it does not actually happen.” Mr. Gemmola said that the Applicant’s special permit expires in three years and has to be renewed. The Applicant would have to “live up to the approval,” or the special permit would not be renewed. The Village Engineer suggested that the Planning Board could have a condition that the landscaping has to be done within a certain time frame. Mr. Luntz questioned when the various aspects of the site work (e.g., the handicap ramp, lighting, etc.) would be done. Mr. Kauderer said that he is somewhat comforted by the fact that
this Applicant came to the Planning Board with such a proposal to begin with. Ms. Allen said that, with respect to a time frame for the landscaping, she would think that the plantings should be installed by the end of next spring. Mr. Luntz said that at the last meeting the Planning Board was given a history of the violations that have occurred on this property. Based on this history, there would seem to be a disregard on the part of this Applicant of the various agreements over the years that were put in place. Mr. Luntz questioned if there is a mechanism in the Village Code that could be used, should the work being proposed not be done, to which the Village Engineer said that an appearance ticket to go before the Justice Court could be issued and the Justice Court could fine the Applicant. Ms. Allen said that, to her, this is not a very satisfying approach to take. She would want to see the site work completed and to see some of this work completed early on,
such as the installation of the handicap ramp and the modifications to the parking lot access. She would think that the landscaping could be done in the fall and spring. The Village Engineer suggested that he could talk to the owner about time frames and implementation of the work and, then, he could bring this matter back to board. Mr. Aarons said that the difficulty he is having with the site work being discussed is, “What happens if it does not get completed?” Mr. Kauderer said that the fear is that the Applicant will use the parking lot on Hudson Street and none of this work will get done. The Village Engineer said that one of the first items could be to close off the access from Hudson Street with the stone wall, to which Chairman Kehoe agreed and said that he, too, would want to limit the access from Hudson Street as early on in the process as possible.

Mr. Luntz said that he would suggest that the Planning Board make it a condition of their approval that the Applicant must complete all of the improvements being proposed in one year; after the year is up the Applicant has to come back before the Planning Board. The Village Engineer suggested further that if the project were not completed, the Applicant would have to explain why. He added that if the site work were “woefully not completed,” then, the Applicant would be in violation of the Planning Board resolution, and the Applicant would be sent to the Justice Court. The Village Engineer suggested that it could also be a condition that the Applicant has to close off the access to the diner parking lot from Hudson Street within 30 days. The Village Engineer noted that a site plan approval is normally valid for three years
as opposed to one year, to which Mr. Kauderer responded that the Planning Board has indicated tonight that they would want this changed to one year. The Village Engineer said that the board could say one year due to special circumstances pertaining to the neighboring residences. Mr. Luntz suggested a time frame of 90 days for the Applicant to build the stone wall and close off the Hudson Street access.

The Village Engineer said that the Applicant should provide for his review a plan for the construction sequence. During construction, there would have to be at least some parking for customers of the diner. The Village Engineer noted that there are many areas of the diner property that are being reworked. Mr. Gemmola noted that, during the construction, there will be machinery coming in and out of the site; should some demolition work have to be done, it might not be a good idea to close off the Hudson Street access right away. Mr. Gemmola suggested that, perhaps, rather than the stone wall, a temporary, removable barrier could be installed. The Village Engineer asked if the board would want to see the plan for the construction sequence, to which Mr. Kauderer did not think it was necessary for the Planning Board to
see this plan. The construction sequence is for the Village Engineer to review. Ms. Allen noted that a construction staging plan is a useful guide for knowing what is going to happen and when. It should be provided but does not have to come back to the Planning Board.

Chairman Kehoe asked if what he is hearing tonight is that the best way to remove debris off of the site would be from Hudson Street rather than Bungalow Road, to which the Village Engineer said that for some of the removal, Hudson Street would be better. Chairman Kehoe suggested that a condition could be that within 30 days from the approval of the site plan the Applicant shall block off with a removable concrete barrier the Hudson Street access.

Chairman Kehoe said that a condition should be that the Applicant shall complete all of the site work being proposed by October 12, 2011, which is one year from tonight. Mr. Aarons suggested October 1st rather than October 12th. The condition should also say that the Applicant has to come back before the Planning Board for the first Planning Board meeting in October of 2011. The Village Engineer said that the condition should say that the Applicant shall come before the Planning Board with an as-built survey showing the completion of the site improvements.

Chairman Kehoe noted again that a condition should be that within 30 days of the site plan approval the Applicant shall block off the Hudson Street access via a heavy concrete barrier, to which Mr. Kauderer said that the Planning Board might want to specify that this barrier can only be removed for construction-related activities.

Chairman Kehoe said that a condition should be that a note shall be added to the site plan pertaining to the requirement(s) for site maintenance under Section 230-72 of the Village Code. Another condition should be that the Applicant shall prepare and submit a construction staging plan, to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer.

Chairman Kehoe asked if with respect to the landscaping plan the Applicant should have any further involvement with the VEB, to which Mr. Luntz said that he, personally, is satisfied with the landscaping plan, as presented.

The Village Engineer said that the detail drawing for the stone wall says “chain link fence;” this detail drawing should be corrected to say “wrought iron-style fence.”

Ms. Allen said that she would think that the curb repair work at the corner of South Riverside Avenue and Hudson Street should be done soon, to which the Village Engineer suggested that the condition pertaining to the construction sequence could (also) say that the curb repair work shall be one of the first steps to be completed in the construction sequence.

Ms. Allen said that she would like to suggest that the Village find a way of making it safer for children to come down Hudson Street to meet the school bus, such as providing a street crossing. The Village Engineer said that he could review with the Police Department and the DPW the possibility of putting in a cross walk in that location.

Mr. Aarons questioned eliminating the sidewalk on Bungalow Road and noted that this sidewalk allows a walkway that “does not force you into the parking lot.” Chairman Kehoe said that from a pedestrian activity point of view, he, personally, has no problem having this sidewalk removed. The Village Engineer said that handicapped individuals would park closer to the entranceway of the diner and would not use that sidewalk. The Village Engineer said that putting in landscaping in that location would greatly soften the impacts of the diner parking lot on passersby and on the neighboring residents. Mr. Luntz noted that it is either the landscaping or the sidewalk; there is not enough room for both.

Chairman Kehoe noted to the board that, because of the proximity of the diner to the Duck Pond, a wetlands permit is required. The Planning Board would be issuing a wetlands permit in conjunction with approving this Applicant’s amended site plan.

Chairman Kehoe asked if there were any further comments, to which there were none.

Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to approve this application with the conditions discussed tonight. The motion was made by Mr. Kauderer, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.

Referral from the Village Board Regarding Local Law Introductory No. 3 of 2010 – Repeal and Enactment of Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay District Zoning Amendments

Chairman Kehoe said that he has still not had an opportunity to draft up the document that he had hoped to have ready for the Planning Board’s use in their discussion of the subject zoning amendments. He recently sent an email to the Planning Board about holding a special meeting to discuss these amendments on Tuesday, October 19th. Ms. Allen said that she will not be able to attend the meeting on the 19th.

Chairman Kehoe said that the Village Attorney has informed him that, although he was unable to attend tonight’s meeting, he will be able to attend the special meeting on October 19th. Chairman Kehoe noted that this will be a public meeting, so interested members of the public are welcome to attend. Chairman Kehoe said that he will try to draft up the aforementioned document for the Planning Board’s use at the meeting of October 19th. The Planning Board can, then, “wrap up” the discussion at their regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, October 26th.

Chairman Kehoe noted that, with respect to these zoning amendments Mr. Kauderer had sent the Planning Board an email pertaining to the number of bedrooms allowed in apartments in mixed-use buildings. The concern has been that there would be an increase in the student population to such a degree that it would overburden the schools and make it necessary to raise taxes. Mr. Kauderer said that his thought is that, perhaps, the Village could mandate/restrict the number of bedrooms in apartments to two bedrooms, to which Chairman Kehoe suggested that this issue could be a part of the discussion at the October 19th special meeting.

Chairman Kehoe said that the Planning Board has 60 days to send their recommendation back to the Village Board on these zoning amendments. The Planning Board will hold their special meeting on October 19th and, then, complete their discussion of the zoning amendments at the meeting of October 26th.

Steven Chester of Signs Ink and Michael Kaufman, Esq., prospective tenant at 2-4 Croton Point Avenue, were present for this application.

Mr. Chester said that the VEB reviewed their sign application and asked for some changes. The revised submission that the Planning Board has received for tonight’s meeting incorporates these changes. Mr. Chester said that they have changed the positioning of the signs on the rear of the building. The positioning of the signs is now more in keeping with the architecture. Mr. Chester said that the VEB also recommended changing the coloring of the signs so that they are more visible from a distance. Finally, the sign on the front façade has been repositioned to line up with the top of the row of windows.

The Village Engineer noted that the reason this Applicant is before the Planning Board is that the two additional signs being proposed for the rear of the building are not permitted by the Zoning Code. The Village Engineer said that Sec. 230-44Q of the Code allows the Planning Board to modify the sign requirements, which would make it possible for this Applicant to install these two additional signs. Mr. Kauderer noted that the existing Prudential sign on the back of the building will be coming down anyway due to a change in affiliation of the realty business (Richard Albert Realty).

Chairman Kehoe asked if these signs would be illuminated, to which Mr. Chester said, “No.”

The Village Engineer asked what the size of the signs would be, to which Mr. Chester said that all three signs (the two in the back and the one in the front) would be 3’ x 6’.

Mr. Aarons wanted to know how the other board members felt about the “threshold issue” as it relates to the signs in the back, to which Ms. Allen said that, in this particular case, she thinks that it is important for these tenants to have their signs back there. Mr. Kauderer noted that the back of the building just faces a parking lot and the train station. He does not have a problem with these signs on the back of the building. Mr. Luntz said that he thinks the signs being proposed are large and obtrusive, but they (the tenants) need signs. Mr. Aarons said that these signs are supposedly not for advertizing. They are just to designate who is in the building. If a sign is for advertizing, then, it is no longer a sign, it is a billboard. Mr. Aarons said that the board is saying “okay” to this signage, which is
facing a parking lot. He questioned what the board would say if this signage were being installed on South Riverside Avenue. Mr. Kauderer said that, to him, these are special circumstances. The signs are just facing a parking lot. He does not see it as being obtrusive or offensive. This is not a street; it is a parking lot. There is a big difference. Mr. Kauderer said that this could be the reasoning used by the Planning Board if another applicant were to come along with the same type of application. Mr. Chester noted that the size of the signs being proposed (3’ x 6’) is never the size of a billboard. A billboard is usually 10’ x 20’ in size. Mr. Aarons said that it is clear to him that, given their size and location, these signs are being used as advertising for people going by, to which Mr. Chester said that the “intrinsic job” of a sign is to advertise.

Chairman Kehoe asked if there were any further comments, to which there were none.

Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion for the Planning Board to modify the sign requirements as per Section 230-44Q of the Village Code and approve this sign application, as presented on the drawings received by the Planning Board on September 28, 2010. The motion was made by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Kauderer and carried by a vote of 4-1. Board member Mark Aarons was opposed.

Bryan Stephens – 48 Prospect Place (Sec. 67.20 Blk. 4 Lot 19.01) – Application for a Modification to the Building Envelope for the Construction of a Swimming Pool

Gregory McWilliams, A.I.A., and Scott Neave of Neave Landscaping, Inc. were present for this application.

Mr. McWilliams said that at the last meeting the Planning Board had questions about the proposed boulder wall along the rear property line, the proposed plantings in the rear and what trees were going to be removed. Mr. McWilliams noted that the Planning Board had already approved at a previous meeting the revised landscaping plan, which included the removal of two Black Walnut trees on the neighboring property. These two trees have since been removed. Mr. McWilliams referred to the Applicant’s “Planting Plan” and said that in all probability the 12-inch DBH Maple tree on the property line will have to be removed. Other than that, there would seem to be no other trees in the back requiring removal. Ms. Allen said that, in fact, they (these trees) have all been removed and the grading is well on its way to
being completed. Chairman Kehoe noted that when the Planning Board approved the revised landscaping plan they approved the re-grading at the back of the property; at that time the Applicant was told that they would have to come back before the Planning Board for the pool.

The Village Engineer said that it is his recollection that at the time the re-grading of the back was approved the wall at the property line was going to be 6 feet in height. The wall has since been reduced to 4 feet. Mr. Neave said that the Applicant had come before the board with a revised landscaping plan that included the removal of the two Black Walnut trees, the removal of a Tulip tree and the re-grading in the back. He believes that the wall that was shown on the plan was only 4 feet in height. Mr. Neave said that this will be the height of the wall when they are finished pitching and re-grading the back. Mr. Neave said that when they were before the board with the landscaping plan, they were under the impression that all of this site work had been approved; the only item that the Planning Board did not
approve at that time was the modification of the building envelope for the swimming pool.

Chairman Kehoe read aloud the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Board when the landscaping plan had been approved. It was noted at that meeting that, should it be determined that a modification to the building envelope would be required for the swimming pool, then, the Applicant would have to come back before the Planning Board.

Ms. Allen said that at the last meeting on the pool/building envelope modification the Planning Board had requested a tree survey that identifies the trees in the back, e.g., their species, size, etc., to which Mr. Aarons said that it is his recollection that some of the members thought that such a survey would not be necessary; the matter was left unresolved.

The Village Engineer noted to the Applicant that for a building permit to be issued for the construction of this swimming pool, the Planning Board would have to approve this building envelope modification/expansion.

Chairman Kehoe said that at the last meeting the board felt that they did not have enough information about what was happening to the trees “down below the pool.” Mr. McWilliams noted that, at that meeting, he was unable to answer the board’s questions about the tree removal.

Chairman Kehoe asked if the only tree that would have to be removed is the 12-inch DBH Maple tree, to which Mr. Neave said that he would think so. Ms. Allen said that as it stands now there is not a single tree on that property, to which Mr. Neave noted to the Planning Board that there are going to be many plants installed on this piece of property. “We are going to be replacing at least 2 to 1 what we have taken out.” Mr. Neave said that the replacement trees include Oak, Tulip, etc.

The Village Engineer told the board the status of the Certificates of Occupancy (CO’s) for the houses. As it stands now, both houses have temporary CO’s. There are outstanding items that have to be completed for permanent CO’s to be issued, one of which are the finalization of the easement agreements. These agreements are currently being worked on. The Village Engineer said that the third house of the Hudson View Subdivision also has a temporary CO. This was the first house to be built. Chairman Kehoe noted that if the owners of this (the third) house want to make any changes on the landscaping, want to put in a swimming pool, etc., they are going to have to go through the same procedure(s).

Chairman Kehoe asked if there were any further comments, to which there were none.

Chairman Kehoe read aloud the draft resolution with the following two conditions:

that erosion control measures shall be installed.

that all soil excavated from the pool shall be removed from the site.

The Village Engineer said that language should be added to the second condition to read:

that all soil excavated from the pool shall be removed from the site or used for the approved landscaping.

Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to approve this building envelope modification with the conditions just discussed. The motion to approve was made by Mr. Aarons, seconded by Mr. Luntz and carried by a vote of 4-1. Board member Fran Allen was opposed.

NEW BUSINESS:

Referral from the Village Board Regarding the Holy Name of Mary Special Permit Application for a Day Care Center

Chairman Kehoe said that the Planning Board received a referral from the Village Board on a special permit application for a day care (pre-school) at the Holy Name of Mary Church. Included in the application materials was the Village Board resolution dated October 4, 2010 in which the Village Board refers this matter to the Planning Board.

Chairman Kehoe said that the subject special permit is for the Montessori School, which has been in operation at the Church for 13 years. The Village Engineer said that the school had a three-year special permit, which is due to expire. The application before the Village Board/Planning Board is for a renewal of the special permit.

Chairman Kehoe said that it would seem that the school is not making any changes that would have any site-related impact(s), e.g., a change in the hours of operation, number of students, etc., to which the Village Engineer said that it is his understanding that nothing is changing.

Chairman Kehoe asked if there were any other comments, to which there were none.

Chairman Kehoe entertained a motion to make a positive recommendation back to the Village Board on the renewal of this special permit for a day care (pre-school) at the Holy Name of Mary Church. The motion was made by Mr. Aarons, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.

Referral from the Village Board Regarding the Special Permit Application for a Mixed-Use Occupancy at 383 South Riverside Avenue

Chairman Kehoe noted that the subject property is in the existing Gateway Overlay Zoning District; the original Gateway Overlay law is in effect.

Mr. Aarons asked if this mixed-use occupancy application is subject to the requirements of the original law, for example, subject to the (existing) .4 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement for mixed-use buildings, to which the Village Engineer told Mr. Aarons that, indeed, this application is subject to those requirements.

The Village Engineer said that this building, with the renovation being proposed, would have to conform to the New York State Building Code; there should be a statement provided by the Applicant that this can be done. A parking analysis should be provided to make certain that the parking requirements are being met. The Village Engineer noted that the board might want to see a parking analysis (just) in case a restaurant goes into this building someday.

Chairman Kehoe asked how many bedrooms are being proposed for the apartments, to which the Village Engineer said that the Applicant is proposing three one-bedroom apartments for the second floor. Initially, the Applicant had proposed four studio apartments, each at approximately 300 square feet in size. The Applicant has since modified the layout to three one-bedroom apartments.

The Planning Board looked at the set of color computer renderings of the proposed building that had been provided to the Village Board/Planning Board. Mr. Aarons said that he thinks that the shell of the building is not changing that much. The Village Engineer said that they had originally proposed a third floor. The Article 78 lawsuit was brought to the Village, so the Applicant had to rethink their mixed-use building proposal. The Village Engineer said that the current proposal includes a sun roof for the apartment residents. Mr. Aarons said that it appears that these residents might have a view of the Hudson River from the rooftop.

The Village Engineer said that the Applicant should come before the board with a parking analysis. The Applicant should “work up” a site plan sketch so that the Planning Board can be sure that they (the Applicant) are in compliance with all site-related items. Mr. Aarons said that this Applicant should have been present tonight to hear the comments being made.

The Village Engineer noted that, in so far as this application is concerned, the Applicant has to comply with both the zoning district and the gateway overlay district standards. The Village Engineer said that the Planning Board “has to look at the Code that is in effect right now.” Mr. Aarons asked what happens if the Code changes after an application is filed. The Village Engineer said that he asked the Village Attorney this question and was told that, “If you are going under a code and it changes, you need to comply with the new code unless there is something in the new law (code) that deals with the preliminary application.”

The Planning Board members all thought that, in order to be in a position to move forward, the Applicant would have to be present at the meeting. The Village Engineer said that he would be in touch with the Applicant about making a “better presentation” to the board and attending an upcoming meeting.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Approval of the minutes of the Tuesday, September 14, 2010 Planning Board meeting was tabled until the next meeting to be held on Tuesday, October 26, 2010.

ADJOURNMENT:

There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:38 P.M.

Sincerely,

Sylvia Mills

Secretary

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on an Amended Site Plan application on Tuesday, September 28, 2010 for Rakis Inc. (Peter Tsagarakis), hereafter known as “the Applicant.” The subject properties associated with this project are designated on the Tax Map of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York as Section 79.09 Block 1 Lots 52, 53, 54, 55 & 56. Tax map lots 53 and 54 are situated in a C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning District and tax map lots 52, 55 and 56 are situated in a RA-5 (One-family Residence) Zoning District; and

WHEREAS, the proposed Amended Site Plan is for a parking lot expansion and the installation of a handicap accessible ramp at the Croton Colonial Diner located at 215 South Riverside Avenue; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposed project is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board declared its Intent to Act as the Lead Agency for this application at their meeting of June 23, 2009 and circulated its Notice of Intent to the Involved and Interested agencies on June 24, 2009; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board declared itself the Lead Agency on July 14, 2009; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board referred this application to the Waterfront Advisory Committee (WAC) for a Determination of Consistency with the Village’s Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) policies and, on December 15, 2009, the WAC found this project to be consistent with the LWRP; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board received and reviewed the WAC’s recommendation of consistency with the LWRP and, based on the WAC’s recommendation, the Planning Board found the project to be consistent with the LWRP subject to the condition, requested by the WAC, that an additional storm drain be installed to prevent “ponding” at a low point in the diner parking lot; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board determined that no significant adverse environmental impacts would result from this project and, as the Lead Agency, issued a Negative Declaration at their meeting of January 26, 2010; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant went before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a special permit for additional parking spaces in the owner’s vacant lot on Hudson Street; a renewal of a special permit for existing parking in the back parking lot along Bungalow Road; and a variance for removal of the back parking lot guide rail; and

WHEREAS, at their meeting of May 12, 2010, the Zoning Board of Appeals issued the aforementioned special permits for the parking and the variance for the guide rail with conditions; and

WHEREAS, on September 28, 2010, the Planning Board closed the public hearing on the Amended Site Plan application.

that the approved site improvements shall be completed by October 1, 2011 and that, for the first Planning Board meeting of October 2011, the Applicant shall come before the Planning Board with an as-built survey showing the completion of these site improvements.

that, prior to the commencement of construction, a construction sequence/staging plan shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer. The curb repair work at the corner of South Riverside Avenue and Hudson Street shall be one of the first steps to be completed in the construction sequence.

that within 30 days from the approval of the site plan the Applicant shall block off the access to the diner from Hudson Street via a heavy removable concrete barrier. This barrier shall be installed until such time as the stone wall is completed and shall only be removed for construction-related activities.

that a note pertaining to the required site maintenance (as per Section 230-72 of the Village Code “Maintenance of on-site improvements”) shall be added to the Applicant’s site plan.

that the detail drawing for the stone wall/fencing that says “chain link fence” shall be corrected to say “new wrought iron-style fence to match the existing wrought iron fence.”

In the event that this Amended Site Plan is not implemented within one (1) year of this date, this approval shall expire.

The Planning Board of the Village of

Croton-on-Hudson, New York

Chris Kehoe, Chairman

Mark Aarons

Fran Allen

Bruce Kauderer

Robert Luntz

Motion to approve by Mr. Kauderer, seconded by Ms. Allen and carried by a vote of 5 to 0.

Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Planning Board approved the Hudson View Subdivision on April 26, 2005; and

WHEREAS, each lot in the Hudson View Subdivision had a building envelope defined for it, beyond which no construction could occur without approval of the Planning Board; and

WHEREAS, Bryan Stephens, owner of Lot #2 in the Hudson View Subdivision (48 Prospect Place – Sec. 67.20 Blk. 4 Lot 19.01) has requested an expansion of that lot’s building envelope for the purpose of building an in-ground swimming pool; and

WHEREAS, under the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), the Planning Board has determined that this project is a Type II Action, and no Negative Declaration is required.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the modification of the building envelope on Lot #2, as shown on sheet #1G entitled “Grading Plan Stephens Residence 48 Prospect Place, Croton-on-Hudson,” prepared by Neave Design Group, dated September 22, 2010, and sheet #1PL entitled “Planting Plan Stephens Residence 48 Prospect Place, Croton-on-Hudson,” prepared by Neave Design Group, dated September 9, 2010 and received by the Planning Board on October 8, 2010, is hereby approved, and the original maximum limit of disturbance as indicated on the approved Hudson View Subdivision plans is increased as shown on the aforementioned grading plan, subject to the following conditions:

that erosion control measures shall be installed.

2. that all soil excavated from the pool shall be removed from the site or used for the approved landscaping.

Failure to implement this approval in three years will result in the expiration of this approval.

The Planning Board of the Village of

Croton-on-Hudson, New York

Chris Kehoe, Chairman

Mark Aarons

Fran Allen

Bruce Kauderer

Robert Luntz

Motion to approve by Mr. Aarons, seconded by Mr. Luntz and carried by a vote of 4 to 1. Ms. Allen was opposed.

Resolution accepted with the minutes of the meeting held on October 12, 2010.